This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/29/2019 at 19:30:47 (UTC).

YAN XU, ET AL. VS OCCIDENTIAL COLLEGE

Case Summary

On 02/27/2019 a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle case was filed by YAN XU against OCCIDENTIAL COLLEGE in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2141

  • Filing Date:

    02/27/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DAI HUIPING

XU YAN

Defendants

JONES RUTH M

PUBLIC INTEREST INVESTIGATIONS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

MALTER STEPHANIE A.

YANIK SHAUNTIM M.

JONES RUTH M.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Reclassification to Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction) of 04/26/2019

4/26/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Reclassification to Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction) of 04/26/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reclassification to Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction)

4/26/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reclassification to Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration in Support BCJ

4/16/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration in Support BCJ

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

4/16/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration in Support BCJ2

4/16/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration in Support BCJ2

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Hearing and Motion

4/16/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Hearing and Motion

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Hearing on Demurrer

4/16/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Hearing on Demurrer

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

4/17/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

4/17/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

4/16/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

4/4/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) - Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

4/4/2019: Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) - Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

3/13/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration CODE CIV. PROC. SEC. 377.32

2/27/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration CODE CIV. PROC. SEC. 377.32

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/27/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

2/27/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/27/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

2/27/2019: Complaint - Complaint

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order (Court Order Re Reclassification to Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order Re Reclassification to Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction) of 04/26/2019; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • On the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 04/26/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • On the Court's own motion, Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 04/26/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • On the Court's own motion, Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) scheduled for 07/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 04/26/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • On the Court's own motion, Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 05/14/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 04/26/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • On the Court's own motion, Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 07/18/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 04/26/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by: Occidental College, a california corporation (Defendant); Ruth M. Jones (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Motion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by: Occidental College, a california corporation (Defendant); Ruth M. Jones (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 05/14/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by: YAN XU (Plaintiff); HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff); As to: Ruth M Jones (Defendant); Service Date: 03/03/2019; Service Cost: 96.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Case assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Complaint; Filed by: YAN XU (Plaintiff); HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff); As to: HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Declaration CODE CIV. PROC. SEC. 377.32; Filed by: YAN XU (Plaintiff); HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff); As to: HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: YAN XU (Plaintiff); HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff); As to: HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: YAN XU (Plaintiff); HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff); As to: HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: YAN XU (Plaintiff); As to: HUIPING DAI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC02141    Hearing Date: January 10, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: January 10, 2020

Case Name: Xu, et al. v. Occidental College, et al.

Case No.: 19STLC02141

Motion: Motion to Dismiss

Moving Party: Defendants Public Interest Investigations, Inc. and Shaunti Yanik

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Dismiss is granted.

The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Public Interest Investigations, Inc. and Shaunti Yanik is granted because after the Court sustained a demurrer to the Complaint with leave to amend, Defendants were not included in the First Amended Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 581(f)(2).)

Case Number: 19STLC02141    Hearing Date: December 30, 2019    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: December 30, 2019

Case Name: Xu, et al. v. Occidental College, et al.

Case No.: 19STLC02141

Motion: Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Occidental College and Ruth M. Jones

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Yan Xu, as an individual and administrator for the Estate of Davis Xu, and Huiping Dai

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Strike is granted in part.

This an action in which it is alleged that Davis Xu died of an accidental or intentional overdose due to an improper decision to place him on academic probation at Occidental College based on a finding that he had stalked a classmate. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiffs Huiping Dai (Davis Xu’s mother) and Yan Xu (Davis Xu’s father), as an individual and the administrator of the Estate of Davis Xu, filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) wrongful death and (2) survival claims.

Defendants Occidental College and Ruth M. Jones seek to strike the FAC’s references to punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Punitive damages are stricken as to the first cause of action because such damages cannot be obtained in connection with a wrongful death claim. (Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 616.) Leave to amend is denied.

The Motion is denied as to the references to punitive damages for the second cause of action. The Court finds the allegations sufficient for the pleadings stage.

The references to attorneys’ fees are stricken because there is no basis to obtain such fees. Plaintiffs argue they can obtain attorneys’ fees by way of the tort of another doctrine, but this doctrine does not apply to joint tortfeasors. (Vacco Indus., Inc. v. Van Den Berg (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 34, 57.) Leave to amend is denied.

In sum, the Motion to Strike is granted in part. Leave to amend is denied.

Case Number: 19STLC02141    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 58

JUDGE JOHN P. DOYLE

DEPARTMENT 58

Hearing Date: December 5, 2019

Case Name: Xu, et al. v. Occidental College, et al.

Case No.: 19STLC02141

Motion: Motions for Reconsideration (2x)

Moving Party: (1) Defendants Occidental College and Ruth M. Jones

(2) Defendants Shaunti Yanik and Public Interest Investigations, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Yan Xu, as an individual and administrator for the Estate of Davis Xu, and Huiping Dai

Tentative Ruling: The Motions are denied.

On August 13, 2019, the Court partly granted the anti-SLAPP Motions of both (1) Defendants Occidental College and Ruth M. Jones and (2) Defendants Shaunti Yanik and Public Interest Investigations, Inc.

Defendants now move for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling partly denying their anti-SLAPP motions.

(1) Defendants Occidental College and Ruth M. Jones

In ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion of Defendants Occidental College and Ruth M. Jones, the Court found that Defendants had not met their burden with respect to the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis as to the fourth through sixth causes of action as well as portions of the first through third causes of action.

Defendants now argue that in light of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, the Court should rule that the entirety of the Complaint arose from protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4).

As relevant here, Wilson held:

[W]e do not hold that a defendant’s motives are categorically off-limits in determining whether an act qualifies as protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. We hold only that the plaintiff’s allegations cannot be dispositive of the question. In some cases (including this one, as we explain below), whether the defendant’s act qualifies as one in furtherance of protected speech or petitioning will depend on whether the defendant took the action for speech-related reasons. Nothing in the statutory scheme prevents the defendant from introducing evidence establishing such reasons. But there is an important difference between permitting the defendant to present evidence of its own motives in an effort to make out its prima facie case of protected activity and treating a plaintiff’s allegations of illicit motive as a bar to anti-SLAPP protection, as Wilson would have us do here.

To conclude otherwise would effectively immunize claims of discrimination or retaliation from anti-SLAPP scrutiny, even though the statutory text establishes no such immunity.

. . .

In sum, we conclude that for anti-SLAPP purposes discrimination and retaliation claims arise from the adverse actions allegedly taken, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s allegation that the actions were taken for an improper purpose. If conduct that supplies a necessary element of a claim is protected, the defendant’s burden at the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis has been carried, regardless of any alleged motivations that supply other elements of the claim. We disapprove Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th 851, review granted, and Nam v. Regents of University of California, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th 1176, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 687, to the extent they are inconsistent with this conclusion.

. . .

Online and on air, CNN covers myriad “matters of public significance.” (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) Its broadcasts and publications include extensive “speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” (Id., § sub. (e)(4).) CNN presented evidence tending to show that its ability to participate meaningfully in public discourse on these subjects depends on its integrity and credibility. Plagiarism is universally recognized as a serious breach of journalistic ethics. Disciplining an employee for violating such ethical standards furthers a news organization’s exercise of editorial control to ensure the organization’s reputation, and the credibility of what it chooses to publish or broadcast, is preserved. These objectives lie “at the core” of the press function. (Newspaper Guild, supra, 636 F.2d at p. 560; see id. at p. 561.) CNN has made out a prima facie case that its staffing decision was based on such considerations, and that such decisions protect the ability of a news organization to contribute credibly to the discussion of public matters. The staffing decision thus qualifies as “conduct in furtherance” of CNN’s “speech in connection with” public matter. (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(4).)

(Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 716-723.)

In a nutshell, Wilson provides that a plaintiff’s allegation of discriminatory motive does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the challenged speech/conduct at issue is not protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4).

The Court respectfully disagrees that the above analysis set forth in Wilson dictates that the entirety (or any portion) of the Complaint arose from protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4). First, the Court never stated that Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4) does not apply because of allegations of discriminatory intent; rather, the Court found that Defendants’ ultimate decision to place Davis Xu on probation was not protected under subdivision (e)(2) of Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (Park v. board of Trustees of California Sate University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057,

1060 [“[A] claim is not subject to a motion to strike simply because it contests an action or decision that was arrived at following speech or petitioning activity. Rather, a claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of . . . .”]), and that subdivision (e)(4) did not apply to such decision because—even in analyzing the context of Defendants’ speech—it did not relate to a matter of public interest. Further, Wilson’s conclusion that CNN’s decision to terminate an employee was protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4) because it related to CNN’s credibility in contributing to public discourse arises from an entirely or substantially different context than that presented here. The decision to place Davis Xu on probation and issue a finding of responsibility does not relate to public discourse, and attempting to tether the matter to the public’s broad interest in precluding sexual misconduct rests on an improper synecdoche theory. (World Fin. Grp., Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 1561, 1570.) That it is a requirement that Defendants have Title IX proceedings does not make this matter similar to the situation in Wilson.

Because Wilson does not alter the Court’s conclusion that the Complaint did not arise from protected activity under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(4), the Motion is denied.

(2) Defendants Shaunti Yanik and Public Interest Investigations, Inc.

Defendants Yanik and Public Interest Investigations, Inc. argue the Court erred as to the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis with respect to the first and second causes of action in the Complaint. Defendants argue that such claims lack minimal merit because Plaintiffs cannot establish duty, breach, and causation.

The Motion is denied for lack of new evidence or law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008.) But even if there were new law or evidence, the Court respectfully disagrees with Defendants’ contentions.

The Motion is denied.